Big Oil’s Answer to [Obama's global warming swindle] May Be Fuel Imports (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
...
The equivalent of one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020 as the cost of carbon allowances erases profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington trade group known as API. Carbon permits would add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, said Russell Jones, the API’s senior economic adviser.

Aspen's fiery [global warming farce] debate smolders on | AspenTimes.com

The city's first global warming project manager, Dan Richardson, was quick to point out the folly of burning fossil fuel in an outdoor hearth at the same time Aspen was spending time and resources trying to reduce its considerable carbon footprint (think private jets, heated driveways and mega-mansions). With its wintertime use, the City Council was told, the hearth emits about 9.5 tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually, or about 40 percent of what an average Aspen home puts out in a year.

“In terms of scale, it doesn't have a big impact,” said Kim Peterson, Richardson's successor as global warming project manager. “I honestly don't think the fire hearth is our problem in Aspen. It's such a tiny part of our carbon output here.”

Former Mayor Helen Klanderud, who was in office when both the hearth and the Canary Initiative were approved, calls the environmental consequences of operating the hearth “much ado about nothing.
...
The City Council directed the city's environmental staff and the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, a local nonprofit, to find an alternative way to fuel the hearth.

The effort fizzled. A competition to come up with ideas produced suggestions like lighting the hearth with candles or laser lights, or powering it with dog poop — presumably by burning a waste product that is never in short supply in Aspen. None of the ideas were viable options to produce heat, light and an attractive gathering space.

The city staff examined other options — replacing the gas-fired workings with sculpture art in the form of flames that would actually be heated by a geothermal or solar source, for example, Peterson said. Hydrogen fuel was also considered, but that would have created a need for buried canisters and trucked-in deliveries.

Green job fallacies - BostonHerald.com

Can governments create “green” jobs by spending big wads of money? Sure - but at the cost of destroying other jobs.

The benefits, environmental or otherwise, might offset the costs. But three prominent recent reports advocating the creation of “green” jobs make no attempt to calculate real benefits and real costs. The economic illiteracy revealed is breathtaking.
...
Will reported on a Spanish researcher’s finding that Spain has destroyed or not created 2.2 jobs for each one created with the help of subsidies of $752,000 to $800,000 in alternative energy.